ShaunR

Awesome. Congrats.

I still don't quite understand this. Windows Handles are indexes into the Handle Table and is limited to something like 16M

The use of the caption for text presentation instead of the label is, perhaps, a little understated as to it's usefulness. You can use labels to identify single controls or groups of controls by using a consistent naming convention (e.g. Button_1, Button_2 etc). By adding the VI name, this becomes a method of name-spacing controls across an entire application. This was how PassaMak (an old, on-the-fly, translation tool of mine) operated and how the Panel Settings Example above is supposed to be used.

The SQLite API for LabVIEW had a feature for that. Very easy with a database. I suppose you could do something similar just by saving and loading a particularly named JSON file.

Anything you are no sure of, just open in a VM first.

Yup. NI read these forums too

We don't know what the OP's competence is in C/C++ - only LabVIEW. Additionally. He may have access to very competent C/C++ programmers within the company. All I'm saying is that, generally, LabVIEW is pretty slow when it comes to computational functions when compared to C/C++. So if he thinks that he can get better performance from a DLL, then it's valid to try things out or to figure out how to tell another C/C++ programmer what interface to their code would be better for him. If I had 10 minutes in a room with the developers of OpenSSL 3, there would be a few choice words and ringing ears at the end of it

That's not strictly true. There are some standard situations where LabVIEW is extremely slow and one of those is for computational functions. As an example. Hashing, encryption et. al. is orders of magnitude faster using OpenSSL than native LabVIEW. I don't know much about AI but I do know it is computationally intensive. Amen to that

Yes. LabVIEW owns it, not the DLL Ready to take the training wheels off (orange nodes) and run in any thread (yellow nodes)? Me neither. I can understand wanting to figure out how to interface to external DLL's but this seems a lot of effort for no reward. Passing a LabVIEW array to a DLL would be more useful as a learning exercise and a lot easier. Maybe it's just that he is moving from C/C++ and so is trying to do things they way he always has. I think we (as LabVIEW programmers) often forget what an enormous paradigm shift it actually is.

I still think this is possible. It's been a couple of years since I wrote C++ so will have to brush up to investigate.

This is good practice. Depending on what version of LV I'm using, I also usually use the flush event queue with either a time (1 sec) or number of events (10) and raise a warning (dropping frames) if it is exceeded. This makes sure you don't run out of memory.

Yes. That's why I was thinking about Varidics being told what function to create with a "creator" function (the cluster) defining it.

so your objection isn't the callback, per se. It's the PostLVUserEvent data type which is a void*. What if we fixed the data type to be an array of U8? That is the most common usage for getting data from callbacks and most types can be massaged into an array of bytes. I was thinking more of a Sunday afternoon while drinking a Negroni

I was wondering if we could have a generic solution for callbacks using Variadic functions/templates or maybe the Pack Expansion. We could prime the callback with a call to set the callback parameter list (cluster?) and target (the dll) we need and then apply the callback which has a PostLVUserEvent in its function body.

NI have just put the distro's behind a paywall. Those links will die.